Literature DB >> 33237397

The wisdom trial is based on faulty reasoning and has major design and execution problems.

Daniel B Kopans1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the design and plan of execution of the "WISDOM" trial.
METHODS: The rationale and reasoning behind the WISDOM Trial were reviewed and analyzed. The published parameters of the trial were reviewed.
RESULTS: The study is based on a failed understanding of the available data about breast cancer screening and is based on faulty assumptions, false reasoning, a scientifically unsupportable study design, ignoring advances in screening, a questionable endpoint, the likely lacking of power to answer the primary question, and support by insurance companies whose primary goal is almost certainly to reduce their costs.
CONCLUSION: A major part of the premise is that there is a "debate" about the efficacy of screening. WISDOM ignores the fact that the "debate" has been manufactured and is not science-based. The results of the WISDOM Trial may be misleading.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Screening; Screening trials

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33237397     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-06020-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  48 in total

Review 1.  The Breast Cancer Screening "Arcade" and the "Whack-A-Mole" Efforts to Reduce Access to Screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 1.875

2.  NBSS: opportunity to compromise the process.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review.

Authors:  D B Kopans; S A Feig
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  A critical appraisal of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study.

Authors:  N F Boyd; R A Jong; M J Yaffe; D Tritchler; G Lockwood; C J Zylak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Studies are compromised and their results are unreliable. They should not factor into decisions about breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Ann W Hsing; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F Pinsky; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; John K Gohagan; Philip C Prorok
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; Kelly Yu; Barnett S Kramer; Amanda Black; John K Gohagan; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  The excess of patients with advanced breast cancer in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.

Authors:  R E Tarone
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a Canadian critique.

Authors:  L J Burhenne; H J Burhenne
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller; Claus Wall; Cornelia J Baines; Ping Sun; Teresa To; Steven A Narod
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-11
View more
  2 in total

1.  Overcoming Barriers in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Management: From Overtreatment to Optimal Treatment.

Authors:  Jean L Wright; Habib Rahbar; Samilia Obeng-Gyasi; Ruth Carlos; Judy Tjoe; Antonio C Wolff
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 50.717

Review 2.  The clinical utility of polygenic risk scores in genomic medicine practices: a systematic review.

Authors:  Judit Kumuthini; Brittany Zick; Angeliki Balasopoulou; Constantina Chalikiopoulou; Collet Dandara; Ghada El-Kamah; Laura Findley; Theodora Katsila; Rongling Li; Ebner Bon Maceda; Henrietta Monye; Gabriel Rada; Meow-Keong Thong; Thilina Wanigasekera; Hannah Kennel; Veeramani Marimuthu; Marc S Williams; Fahd Al-Mulla; Marc Abramowicz
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 5.881

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.